2019 Off Season

[sweetlou]

I would love Buffalo to go after Boyle on a 1 year 2 million deal to center 4th line.  Give Asplund one more year in AHL.

What teams are in need of RD to be trade partners with Buffalo for Risto.

Nashville- Maybe a Risto, Sheary deal for Granlund, Jarnkrok, and Fabbro.  (Even if we only get Granlund for one year I think his return at trade deadline would be greater than Sheary and keeps Mitts sheltered on third line for one more year.)

WPG-  Risto for Ehlers

 

 

[triumph_communes]

5 hours ago, E4 ... Ke2 said:

FYI: I believe Krueger was contractually obligated to stay in Southampton.

I think there is strong evidence for this as well.

Several things:

The final roster, who belongs in the NHL and who does not, is in the hands of the GM.  The game-to-game roster is in the hands of the coach.  They should communicate, but that is the traditional division of labour and I see no reason to believe Botterill and Housley were any different.

When the GM has incontrovertible proof that a player is underperforming or undermining the team, it is his job to move said player off the team, whether it be to the minors or the KHL.  And if Housley overplays Sobotka, it is Botterill's job to get him out of the locker room.  Period.  I view Sobotka's mere presence in the media guide at the start of training camp as rank incompetence, no if's, and's, or but's.  If Tage Thompson is the only person in the league whose analytics are in the same neighbourhood as Sobotka's, it is Botterill's job to send him down immediately.

Even when people were reporting that Sobotka was terrible in training camp, I read several reporters' articles that said that Sobotka, Thompson, and Berglund were staying here for the year, period.  I wish I could recall who listed all of them on the team while jokingly putting Eichel, Reinhart, and Skinner in Rochester just to make sure the point got across because I swore out loud at work when I read it.  Then I showed the article to everyone and then they swore together.  The inference we all drew was this was so that he could justify the O'Reilly trade; to whom is beyond me.

Let us look at their records at various points in the season:

• 11/27/2018 (last game of streak): 17-6-2
• 12/22/2018 (last game before Christmas Break): 21-11-5
• 1/18/2019 (Last game before All-Star Break): 24-18-6
• 2/23/2019 (Last game before TDL; Montour acquired): 29-24-8
• 3/5/2019 (Day of Botterill's interview): 30-28-9
• 4/2/2019 (Before last 2 games): 31-39-10

You can see the team getting progressively worse as the season goes on.  Why can't Botterill's inertia take any of the blame?  I personally believe that, "good teams find a way to win; bad teams find a way to lose."  I don't believe that a team can have a 10 game regulation unbeaten streak by accident.  Blame the 1972-3 Sabres' October for that.

Montour was added, which I did like.  Why could we not have traded with a bottom feeder at the time, like St. Louis or Minnesota?  Why not trade a late 1st for 1 year of a clear 2C or even a high-end 3C before we fell out of 8th?  The message that sends your team is that you believe in them and maybe they keep it up; they certainly don't crash and burn like they did in March.  In St. Louis's case, their GM was ready to pack it in.  If we had offered that for someone like Tyler Bozak or even Alex Steen (clear overpayment), they might have folded even if they all sing "Gloria."

After JBot's terrible press conference, the team didn't quit on Housley - they quit on Botterill because Botterill had already quit on them.  They didn't believe in themselves anymore because Botterill never believed in them in the first place.  Exactly how the **** could any coach pull them out of the funk then?  That, bluntly, is bad management.

Then why didn't Tage disappear?  IMHO, because Tage is supposed to replace and surpass Ryan O'Reilly.

Why didn't Sobotka disappear?  IMHO, because Sobotka is supposed to replace and surpass Ryan O'Reilly until Tage is ready.

I largely agree with you with Krueger.

IMHO, though, unless Mittlestadt's wingers were Skinner and Reinhart, he was necessarily going to be excessively sheltered because he really wasn't ready for that level of responsibility.  That would put Eichel with Rodrigues and either Sheary or Pominville.  (Please, God, Forgive me for typing this.)  Unless, of course, the best course was for Housley to have Eichel with Thompson and Sobotka to protect the rest of the team.

Note: the "smoke signals" are based on my presumption that the WGR hosts and guests are softening us up for what JBot will do before training camp.

If I am reading the smoke signals properly, Vesey is here for Eichel's wing.  Assuming that Girgensons and Larsson are here, you need to have Okposo with them because that is the only line where he was truly effective last year and, frankly, we are stuck with him.  Honestly, if they don't need to have 80% DZS to protect the middle 6, I bet they total 40 goals.  (On the other hand, the smoke signals look like they are gone and Sobotka is staying.)

I agree with Oloffson with Eichel.  I think those two will have great chemistry.

I will assume you mean that Mittlestadt will be the #2 offencive centre because, IMHO, a centre who needs to be sheltered is not a #2.

In sum:

Housley earnt his firing.  Even if the GM saddles you with Thompson and Sobotka, you don't have to dress them if you have 8 defencemen available.  Even if you have to dress them, there is no excuse in the universe for Sobotka being 4th among the forwards in ice time until Bill Hoppe, John Vogl, and everyone else write those scathing analyses of Sobotka.  He should not have given hours of ice time to the Scandella-Ristolainen pairing.  In particular, I can't think of a good reason to play Scandella over Pilut.

We also learnt that to run Housley's system, you need either 6 Norris-calibre defencemen and/or a Vezina-calibre goaltender and/or 4 complete lines of quality depth (2005-6 Sabres level).  This killed Lindy Ruff in Dallas, Housley here, Toronto under Babcock, and Nashville in some of their playoff series over the years.  In fact, the more I have analysed their system, the more I lean towards "and".  And I LIKED the way the team looked when they executed his system well.

Even so, I put about 2/3 of the blame this year on Botterill.  IMHO, he was an incompetent manager by failing to help his subordinates when they clearly needed a psychological push.  He then undermined them with his press conference on 5 March.

Even if I forgive him the O'Reilly trade, he failed last off-season by gifting positions to Sobotka and Thompson.  He also failed last off-season by not having a back-up plan in case Mittlestadt was not ready for #2C.

He also failed in-season as a GM by failing to address clear personnel deficiencies in Thompson and Sobotka.  He failed as an overall GM by never getting a competent #2C and by never having 12 NHL-quality forwards available for Housley to dress the entire season.  IMHO, if he just does this, which is the bare minimum we should expect from him, the Sabres make the playoffs last season anyway.  I would have had patience if he had done either this or traded for a #2C and the Sabres still missed the playoffs.

But RHIP.  Assuming no disasters, the bare minimum I expect out of this team is the playoffs.  I believe that the expectations for this team this year should be like the Leafs 2 years ago.  Nothing less is acceptable.  Failing that, Botterill should be canned.

 

Thanks for the drawn out reply. I respectfully disagree with the overall assessment, but I’m just going to focus on a few points:

 

1). There are many interviews where Botterill has stated that his relationship with the coach is to suggest players for the main squad, but he has repeatedly said final decision on which league a player is in is on the coach.  Yes, the GM obviously has the power to trump this line if needed, but Botterill lets the coach have reign.  This is the sort of leash that helps him attract guys like Krueger in the future— most coaches have a bit of an ego and don’t want to fight their GM.  Look at Toronto this off season and all that messy noise..

2) Thompson was never meant as some 1 for 1 replacement for ROR. At most he was a half replacement, in the future. That’s some incredible pressure to put on the kid. His role is to be a large body finisher on a team that has plenty of playmakers.  This team needs RWs and unfortunately he didn’t develop right away and that’s why we ended up with Vesey as a stop gap for the upcoming season.

3) On the trade deadline Botterill made it clear- the team was in no position to hedge the future just to make the playoffs last season (with a coach he already gave up on). He also didn’t sell everything for spare parts either. Montour was the perfect balance there and was a great trade.  Again though, if you think he failed at acquiring a 2C mid season, I will reiterate that statistically the team was getting very lucky bounces and was bound to regress to a mean unless Housley changed something (and he didn’t).  Also, you don’t often see trades mid season for 2Cs like that.  The better deals were this offseason that he is yet to make.

4) The Montour trade was as much positive endorsement the GM could realistically give on a team that was already playing with no heart. I believe they gave up on the coach who couldn’t figure out how to teach his system to the players on the team who were struggling to learn it. Housley’s failures appear to be on communication more than anything.

[LTS]

5 hours ago, E4 ... Ke2 said:

FYI: I believe Krueger was contractually obligated to stay in Southampton.

I think there is strong evidence for this as well.

Several things:

The final roster, who belongs in the NHL and who does not, is in the hands of the GM.  The game-to-game roster is in the hands of the coach.  They should communicate, but that is the traditional division of labour and I see no reason to believe Botterill and Housley were any different.

When the GM has incontrovertible proof that a player is underperforming or undermining the team, it is his job to move said player off the team, whether it be to the minors or the KHL.  And if Housley overplays Sobotka, it is Botterill's job to get him out of the locker room.  Period.  I view Sobotka's mere presence in the media guide at the start of training camp as rank incompetence, no if's, and's, or but's.  If Tage Thompson is the only person in the league whose analytics are in the same neighbourhood as Sobotka's, it is Botterill's job to send him down immediately.

Even when people were reporting that Sobotka was terrible in training camp, I read several reporters' articles that said that Sobotka, Thompson, and Berglund were staying here for the year, period.  I wish I could recall who listed all of them on the team while jokingly putting Eichel, Reinhart, and Skinner in Rochester just to make sure the point got across because I swore out loud at work when I read it.  Then I showed the article to everyone and then they swore together.  The inference we all drew was this was so that he could justify the O'Reilly trade; to whom is beyond me.

[... snipped a lot ...]

Love your arguments, I honestly do.  There is a ton of thought put into them and they are laid out very well.

Through all of your writings, you appear to presume that Botterill is being held to the standard of win now.  I think that's the primary failing.  I don't believe the plan is or ever was, win now. I believe the plan is, build the team for sustained playoff appearances. As such, the same reasons you provide for Botterill being a poor manager could also be used to provide support for him complying with the plan.

On pure execution, Botterill did not secure the appropriate roster resources to provide better success, even within the framework of long term, sustained success.  However, it does not mean he did not attempt to make other trades that simply did not pan out.

The bottom line through all of this is whether or not you will accept the possibility that there are unknown factors (unknown to the public) that are dictating what might appear to head scratching results. Ultimately, it then boils down to, do you believe Jason Botterill is competent at his job or not.  If you accept the possibility that there are influencing factors that might be leading to some of the head scratching decisions, then you don't necessarily presume he is a poor manager or incompetent.  You simply do not know.

This is where I am at.  I allow for the possibility that there are some influences that come from above and some longer term goals (regardless of fan angst) that can lead to a reasonable level of support for the seemingly head scratching decisions.  

It is not unprecedented that a person would make decisions that appear extremely ignorant to those outside of the situation.

Personally, I was fired from a VP position, because I refused to continue to play along with the directives of the CEO and finally questioned him.  Similarly, I was told yesterday that I needed to move something forward that, in my opinion, was an incredibly stupid thing to do.  However, given that the decision likely came from an SVP who would not take kindly to me calling it incredibly stupid, I moved it forward.  Why?  Because I need to remain employed at the moment.  This, coupled with other things, may lead me to seek alternate employment, but that's not always accomplished overnight.  Now, that might be an isolated incident.  I've already been questioned as to why I put this item forward and I have to toe the line.  It makes me appear like an idiot.  I don't like it.  However, I do enjoy receiving a paycheck.  

Jason Botterill might not like the current situation.  However, he's in his first GM role and he could choose to straight away quit his job.  It probably won't bode well for his long term future.  So he'll make the best of it.  When he goes to interview for his next GM position (assuming things don't play out here) I am sure he can then speak to the constraints that were put upon him by ownership.  He can speak to how he did not betray his employer and still worked to do the best he could within that framework.  The new owners will appreciate that kind of commitment.

Now, naturally all of this is pure speculation. We simply do not know.  We can see head scratching decisions, we can ASSUME we know why.  The reasons can't always be given in public.  I'm not ready to close the book on the guy, so I leave open the fact that he could be operating under certain directives that can provide an explanation for the moves that are made.

As a fan, I am left with a few possibilities.

• Assume the GM is incompetent, and that the team is not going to have success as long as he is making decisions. This sets me up as waiting for the next GM to come in so we can start this process over again.
• Assume the GM is incompetent, however the team might get lucky and still have success enough that it will be enjoyable enough for me as a fan, until the next GM arrives and potentially everything changes.
• Assume there is a longer term goal and the GM is abiding by it. I can then accept this longer term goal and hope like hell they execute on it.
• Assume there is a longer term goal and the GM is abidin by it. I can then NOT accept this longer term goal because I want them to win now.

There's no right answer in the above options. No one has convinced me that any of the above are accurate.  Your arguments, as well laid out as they are, do not sway me from accepting that there might be factors dictating those decisions and that the ultimatum was not win now.

Final caveat: I think that the ultimatum is out now.  Pegula has said that it's time to start winning.  I actually believe that was the public statement that removes Pegula from the situation and puts it all on Botterill and his coaching staff.  There are a few remnants from prior management, but indications are that they are likely to be moved out. So, the clock might be ticking now on Botterill and that he will need to show remarkable improvement this season, although I don't think he's fired this season.  I think that remains a 2020-2021 decision.

[Marvin]

2 hours ago, LTS said:

Love your arguments, I honestly do.  There is a ton of thought put into them and they are laid out very well.

Through all of your writings, you appear to presume that Botterill is being held to the standard of win now.  I think that's the primary failing.  I don't believe the plan is or ever was, win now. I believe the plan is, build the team for sustained playoff appearances. As such, the same reasons you provide for Botterill being a poor manager could also be used to provide support for him complying with the plan.

On pure execution, Botterill did not secure the appropriate roster resources to provide better success, even within the framework of long term, sustained success.  However, it does not mean he did not attempt to make other trades that simply did not pan out.

Thank you very much.  And thank you for your civility and thoughtfulness.

I don't believe that Pegula required Botterill to "win now" last year.  However, I believe that when the team proved that they could play with anyone and then had a 10 game regulation unbeaten streak, then he should have reset his expectations and adapt.  I firmly believe that he owed it to the players, the coach, the fans, and the rest of the franchise to do so.  Among other things, it makes the players more likely to do that little extra in practises to improve and grow, make them more committed in games to digging a little deeper, and instills more confidence in them.  That makes for 3 obvious options:

1. A late 1st for a decent centre to allow the youngsters to experience positive re-enforcement seems obvious to me.  That was the price put on Eric Staal, among others.

2. Reshuffling who was in the NHL to get 4 lines working where none of them get caved in every single time they hit the ice.

3. Trades on the order of a 7th for Tsyplakov to get to 4 passable lines.

In any event, that press conference where he undermined his dressing room by saying that their good play was a mirage was a BAD, BAD, BAD idea.

2 hours ago, LTS said:

The bottom line through all of this is whether or not you will accept the possibility that there are unknown factors (unknown to the public) that are dictating what might appear to head scratching results. Ultimately, it then boils down to, do you believe Jason Botterill is competent at his job or not.  If you accept the possibility that there are influencing factors that might be leading to some of the head scratching decisions, then you don't necessarily presume he is a poor manager or incompetent.  You simply do not know.

This is where I am at.  I allow for the possibility that there are some influences that come from above and some longer term goals (regardless of fan angst) that can lead to a reasonable level of support for the seemingly head scratching decisions.  

It is not unprecedented that a person would make decisions that appear extremely ignorant to those outside of the situation.

Personally, I was fired from a VP position, because I refused to continue to play along with the directives of the CEO and finally questioned him.  Similarly, I was told yesterday that I needed to move something forward that, in my opinion, was an incredibly stupid thing to do.  However, given that the decision likely came from an SVP who would not take kindly to me calling it incredibly stupid, I moved it forward.  Why?  Because I need to remain employed at the moment.  This, coupled with other things, may lead me to seek alternate employment, but that's not always accomplished overnight.  Now, that might be an isolated incident.  I've already been questioned as to why I put this item forward and I have to toe the line.  It makes me appear like an idiot.  I don't like it.  However, I do enjoy receiving a paycheck.  

...

Final caveat: I think that the ultimatum is out now.  Pegula has said that it's time to start winning.  I actually believe that was the public statement that removes Pegula from the situation and puts it all on Botterill and his coaching staff.  There are a few remnants from prior management, but indications are that they are likely to be moved out. So, the clock might be ticking now on Botterill and that he will need to show remarkable improvement this season, although I don't think he's fired this season.  I think that remains a 2020-2021 decision.

I have been in very bad management situations.  I can fully empathise with what you are saying.  I also assume that a lot of things happen for reasons that are not immediately apparent.  In particular, I think that the Pegulas are less knowledgeable, less sophisticated, and more, um, naively enthusiastic than virtually everyone who has ever posted on this site with hockey strategy, tactics, and management.  Thus, I think JBot's job is harder than it should be.

My problem with JBot is that his messages, which I like, are often contradicted by his actions.

First, where his message jives with his actions: he clearly has emphasised improving from the ground up and is executing that plan fairly well.  I need to see if he changes the mix of player types, skills, etc. to adapt to what he has seen in two years.  So far, his drafting and signings of non-NHL players has been very good.

However...

A meritocracy requires discipline and making tough decisions.  That means that even people you like have to be canned, demoted, etc. if they are either a performance problem (Sobotka, Thompson) or an attitude problem (Sobotka again) because they make your team worse.  By midseason, he and Housley had to face facts and replace Thompson and Sobotka with competent NHLers, even if it necessitates a revolving door from Rochester to try people out.  I can't think of even a plausible-if-bad reason for them to have been on the team past 1/1/2019.

The results?  Keeping clearly incompetent players on the big club undermines any "culture change" JBot et al. are purporting to make.  This was the second year that JBot made it impossible for Housley to ice 4 competent NHL lines, even by accident.  This makes any long-term positive goal harder to achieve or at least delays it because he sent a message to the core players that it is OK to waste a substantial part of their careers.

If you want to pin the terrible roster completely on Housley, that's fine.  I just think that's impossible.  He scratched Tage Thompson a lot early in the season.  I don't know how much more loudly Housley could have said, "Tage isn't ready, Jason," without going public.  And if you think that Housley was OK with only two lines that could clear the zone, that's fine, but I don't know of a coach who doesn't belong at 400 Forest who wants to set himself up to lose.  And if Housley needed to go to Arkham, then replace him with someone who went through The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether

3 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

Thanks for the drawn out reply. I respectfully disagree with the overall assessment, but I’m just going to focus on a few points:

You are welcome.  And thank you for your civility and thoughtful answers.

3 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

1). There are many interviews where Botterill has stated that his relationship with the coach is to suggest players for the main squad, but he has repeatedly said final decision on which league a player is in is on the coach.  Yes, the GM obviously has the power to trump this line if needed, but Botterill lets the coach have reign.  This is the sort of leash that helps him attract guys like Krueger in the future— most coaches have a bit of an ego and don’t want to fight their GM.  Look at Toronto this off season and all that messy noise..

2) Thompson was never meant as some 1 for 1 replacement for ROR. At most he was a half replacement, in the future. That’s some incredible pressure to put on the kid. His role is to be a large body finisher on a team that has plenty of playmakers.  This team needs RWs and unfortunately he didn’t develop right away and that’s why we ended up with Vesey as a stop gap for the upcoming season.

3) On the trade deadline Botterill made it clear- the team was in no position to hedge the future just to make the playoffs last season (with a coach he already gave up on). He also didn’t sell everything for spare parts either. Montour was the perfect balance there and was a great trade.  Again though, if you think he failed at acquiring a 2C mid season, I will reiterate that statistically the team was getting very lucky bounces and was bound to regress to a mean unless Housley changed something (and he didn’t).  Also, you don’t often see trades mid season for 2Cs like that.  The better deals were this offseason that he is yet to make.

4) The Montour trade was as much positive endorsement the GM could realistically give on a team that was already playing with no heart. I believe they gave up on the coach who couldn’t figure out how to teach his system to the players on the team who were struggling to learn it. Housley’s failures appear to be on communication more than anything.

1. I will take your word for it.  I have interpreted his exact same words differently.

2. If JBot did not want us to think of Thompson as an ROR replacement, then he played his hand almost as badly as possible.  Having him in Buffalo all year undermined his development and put him into an impossible situation.  Then, when it was immediately obvious that he did not belong, forcing him to stay up here just exacerbated the situation.

I should be clear here: I want Thompson to succeed.  I believe that the way JBot has handled him could screw him up the way Zemgus, Larry, Risto, et al. were undermined by the tank and by being in the NHL too soon.  And if this keeps up, he won't even end up being that good.

3-4. As I said above, the very least he could have done was got to Skinner-Eichel-Reinhart followed by a trio of 4th lines who would be no worse than 45-55 zone time.  A #2C from a bottom-feeder was preferable, mind you, but this variation does not mortgage the future for the benefit of the present.  In the 1999-2000 season, the spiral was arrested after Darcy traded a 7th for Vladimir Tsyplakov.  The team was noticeably better the second he hit the ice -- particularly Mike Peca.

From my angle, you appear to put 100% of the blame last year on Housley.   I can't do that.  Because of the experience I have as in management and my analyses of the team, I believe Botterill should take a majority of the blame.

ASIDE: How obvious was it that Sobotka was bad?  Have a look at these.  They are why I am impatient to get rid of him.

 

@Randall Flagg Please teach me how to be as erudite as you are.

Edited July 3, 2019 by E4 ... Ke2
Please help, RF.

[triumph_communes]

12 minutes ago, E4 ... Ke2 said:

Thank you very much.  And thank you for your civility and thoughtfulness.

I don't believe that Pegula required Botterill to "win now" last year.  However, I believe that when the team proved that they could play with anyone and then had a 10 game regulation unbeaten streak, then he should have reset his expectations and adapt.  I firmly believe that he owed it to the players, the coach, the fans, and the rest of the franchise to do so.  Among other things, it makes the players more likely to do that little extra in practises to improve and grow, make them more committed in games to digging a little deeper, and instills more confidence in them.  That makes for 3 obvious options:

1. A late 1st for a decent centre to allow the youngsters to experience positive re-enforcement seems obvious to me.  That was the price put on Eric Staal, among others.

2. Reshuffling who was in the NHL to get 4 lines working where none of them get caved in every single time they hit the ice.

3. Trades on the order of a 7th for Tsyplakov to get to 4 passable lines.

In any event, that press conference where he undermined his dressing room by saying that their good play was a mirage was a BAD, BAD, BAD idea.

I have been in very bad management situations.  I can fully empathise with what you are saying.  I also assume that a lot of things happen for reasons that are not immediately apparent.  In particular, I think that the Pegulas are less knowledgeable, less sophisticated, and more, um, naively enthusiastic than virtually everyone who has ever posted on this site with hockey strategy, tactics, and management.  Thus, I think JBot's job is harder than it should be.

My problem with JBot is that his messages, which I like, are often contradicted by his actions.

First, where his message jives with his actions: he clearly has emphasised improving from the ground up and is executing that plan fairly well.  I need to see if he changes the mix of player types, skills, etc. to adapt to what he has seen in two years.  So far, his drafting and signings of non-NHL players has been very good.

However...

A meritocracy requires discipline and making tough decisions.  That means that even people you like have to be canned, demoted, etc. if they are either a performance problem (Sobotka, Thompson) or an attitude problem (Sobotka again) because they make your team worse.  By midseason, he and Housley had to face facts and replace Thompson and Sobotka with competent NHLers, even if it necessitates a revolving door from Rochester to try people out.  I can't think of even a plausible-if-bad reason for them to have been on the team past 1/1/2019.

The results?  Keeping clearly incompetent players on the big club undermines any "culture change" JBot et al. are purporting to make.  This was the second year that JBot made it impossible for Housley to ice 4 competent NHL lines, even by accident.  This makes any long-term positive goal harder to achieve or at least delays it because he sent a message to the core players that it is OK to waste a substantial part of their careers.

If you want to pin the terrible roster completely on Housley, that's fine.  I just think that's impossible.  He scratched Tage Thompson a lot early in the season.  I don't know how much more loudly Housley could have said, "Tage isn't ready, Jason," without going public.  And if you think that Housley was OK with only two lines that could clear the zone, that's fine, but I don't know of a coach who doesn't belong at 400 Forest who wants to set himself up to lose.  And if Housley needed to go to Arkham, then replace him with someone who went through The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether

You are welcome.  And thank you for your civility and thoughtful answers.

1. I will take your word for it.  I have interpreted his exact same words differently.

2. If JBot did not want us to think of Thompson as an ROR replacement, then he played his hand almost as badly as possible.  Having him in Buffalo all year undermined his development and put him into an impossible situation.  Then, when it was immediately obvious that he did not belong, forcing him to stay up here just exacerbated the situation.

I should be clear here: I want Thompson to succeed.  I believe that the way JBot has handled him could screw him up the way Zemgus, Larry, Risto, et al. were undermined by the tank and by being in the NHL too soon.  And if this keeps up, he won't even end up being that good.

3-4. As I said above, the very least he could have done was got to Skinner-Eichel-Reinhart followed by a trio of 4th lines who would be no worse than 45-55 zone time.  A #2C from a bottom-feeder was preferable, mind you, but this variation does not mortgage the future for the benefit of the present.  In the 1999-2000 season, the spiral was arrested after Darcy traded a 7th for Vladimir Tsyplakov.  The team was noticeably better the second he hit the ice -- particularly Mike Peca.

From my angle, you appear to put 100% of the blame last year on Housley.   I can't do that.  Because of the experience I have as in management and my analyses of the team, I believe Botterill should take a majority of the blame.

ASIDE: How obvious was it that Sobotka was bad?  Have a look at these.  They are why I am impatient to get rid of him.

 

@Randall Flagg Please teach me how to be as erudite as you are.

I stand similarly with the other poster from above. Botterill’s job is to ensure continued success year after year. The timeline for that, unfortunately, is longer than may be fair to fans. But given the hole Murray had us in, it’s necessary. Housley’s job was to just get the most out of the player pool his GM gave him. He had all season to switch Girgensons or Rodrigues to center and call up Smith et al, but he didn’t ask for that. 

Thompson’s problems were his cute dekes. He gets away with them in the AHL, but he doesn’t in the NHL. I believe the reason he stayed up is because keeping him down was just going to reinforce bad habits. I also have a difficult time being hard on a player who was stapled to Sobotka the vast majority of his time. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by triumph_communes

[spndnchz]

Many words?

[LTS]

20 minutes ago, E4 ... Ke2 said:

Thank you very much.  And thank you for your civility and thoughtfulness.

I don't believe that Pegula required Botterill to "win now" last year.  However, I believe that when the team proved that they could play with anyone and then had a 10 game regulation unbeaten streak, then he should have reset his expectations and adapt.  I firmly believe that he owed it to the players, the coach, the fans, and the rest of the franchise to do so.  Among other things, it makes the players more likely to do that little extra in practises to improve and grow, make them more committed in games to digging a little deeper, and instills more confidence in them.  That makes for 3 obvious options:

1. A late 1st for a decent centre to allow the youngsters to experience positive re-enforcement seems obvious to me.  That was the price put on Eric Staal, among others.

2. Reshuffling who was in the NHL to get 4 lines working where none of them get caved in every single time they hit the ice.

3. Trades on the order of a 7th for Tsyplakov to get to 4 passable lines.

In any event, that press conference where he undermined his dressing room by saying that their good play was a mirage was a BAD, BAD, BAD idea.

I have been in very bad management situations.  I can fully empathise with what you are saying.  I also assume that a lot of things happen for reasons that are not immediately apparent.  In particular, I think that the Pegulas are less knowledgeable, less sophisticated, and more, um, naively enthusiastic than virtually everyone who has ever posted on this site with hockey strategy, tactics, and management.  Thus, I think JBot's job is harder than it should be.

My problem with JBot is that his messages, which I like, are often contradicted by his actions.

First, where his message jives with his actions: he clearly has emphasised improving from the ground up and is executing that plan fairly well.  I need to see if he changes the mix of player types, skills, etc. to adapt to what he has seen in two years.  So far, his drafting and signings of non-NHL players has been very good.

However...

A meritocracy requires discipline and making tough decisions.  That means that even people you like have to be canned, demoted, etc. if they are either a performance problem (Sobotka, Thompson) or an attitude problem (Sobotka again) because they make your team worse.  By midseason, he and Housley had to face facts and replace Thompson and Sobotka with competent NHLers, even if it necessitates a revolving door from Rochester to try people out.  I can't think of even a plausible-if-bad reason for them to have been on the team past 1/1/2019.

The results?  Keeping clearly incompetent players on the big club undermines any "culture change" JBot et al. are purporting to make.  This was the second year that JBot made it impossible for Housley to ice 4 competent NHL lines, even by accident.  This makes any long-term positive goal harder to achieve or at least delays it because he sent a message to the core players that it is OK to waste a substantial part of their careers.

If you want to pin the terrible roster completely on Housley, that's fine.  I just think that's impossible.  He scratched Tage Thompson a lot early in the season.  I don't know how much more loudly Housley could have said, "Tage isn't ready, Jason," without going public.  And if you think that Housley was OK with only two lines that could clear the zone, that's fine, but I don't know of a coach who doesn't belong at 400 Forest who wants to set himself up to lose.  And if Housley needed to go to Arkham, then replace him with someone who went through The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether

You are welcome.  And thank you for your civility and thoughtful answers.

 

I'm not sure he was operating a meritocracy last year.  I think there were clearly players that could have been up in Buffalo but were kept in the AHL simply to experience winning and success.  He might have also done so to keep those players from being coached by Housley, if he knew he wanted to replace the coach anyway.

I think trading a late first was possible.  I also look at it this way.  Until the Sabres traded for Montour they had 3 first round picks.  It was at that time they could have made the move. If they had, they would have only had 1 first rounder left to use on the Montour trade.  If they traded that away, they would have only had a single first round pick in this year's draft and no second round picks.  So, by not making that move, they kept two first round picks which gave them two picks before the third round.

Reshuffling who is up and down?  I think I address why in my take on he wanted players kept in the AHL.

Other trades?  Very open ended.  I can't debate too much about it.  It's possible those trades were not there or by doing so it would have created a situation where a player needed to get pulled up from Rochester and again I believe he was operating under his own restriction to do that only as a last resort.

I don't blame Housley, I didn't blame him last year.  The team was not as good as some people believed.  Housley certainly made some head-scratching decisions and he certainly did not get the team motivated enough.  This may be for many of the reasons you state.

I think the fact that Skinner re-signed with the team demonstrates that the locker room was not completely lost.  He could have gone elsewhere or even played the market and that did not happen.  I think the players, despite wanting to win, can accept what Botterill is doing.  In some cases it might be "grin and bear it" because there's nothing they can do about it.  

Again, I think, at my core, I disagree with your premise of meritocracy and because of that I view things a bit differently.  I agree with your points, operating under your assumptions however.

 

[Marvin]

3 hours ago, spndnchz said:

Many words?

 

 

[Marvin]

@LTS@triumph_communes

Thanks for the points of view.  As you both said, we don't see things the same way and don't have the same perception of what was correct for JBot to do.

I see that we are getting on @spndnchz's nerves, so I will just say it was a nice discussion and that you both gave me some extra food for thought.

[LTS]

7 minutes ago, E4 ... Ke2 said:

@LTS@triumph_communes

Thanks for the points of view.  As you both said, we don't see things the same way and don't have the same perception of what was correct for JBot to do.

I see that we are getting on @spndnchz's nerves, so I will just say it was a nice discussion and that you both gave me some extra food for thought.

Heaven forbid a discussion forum contains long civilized discussion.

Although I don't think we are getting on anyone's nerves.  I'm pretty sure the mods would prefer the level of discussion that was happening over the discussion of what is or is not a troll.

[spndnchz]

2 hours ago, LTS said:

Heaven forbid a discussion forum contains long civilized discussion.

Although I don't think we are getting on anyone's nerves.  I'm pretty sure the mods would prefer the level of discussion that was happening over the discussion of what is or is not a troll.

I’m fine with but personally don’t want to take all those minutes to read one post. 

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, spndnchz said:

I’m fine with but personally don’t want to take all those minutes to read one post. 

You would if it was Randoph Scott Randall Flagg. ?

[spndnchz]

2 hours ago, LTS said:

Heaven forbid a discussion forum contains long civilized discussion.

Although I don't think we are getting on anyone's nerves.  I'm pretty sure the mods would prefer the level of discussion that was happening over the discussion of what is or is not a troll.

Discussion is fine. My non-mod mode is just expressing my opinion. Doesn’t mean it’s right. 

I’m not stapling my opinion to anyone. Just voicing them. 

[North Buffalo]

Oof, as long winded and civil as this discussion was/is it sounds like attempts to understand Botts motivations for the moves he has or hasnt made by to an extent getting into his head.... and the tough part, getting a better understanding of what actual opportunities are out there and if he missed on any reasonable ones.  Makes my head spin... but I think we all are trying figure out at the GM level what can be made to happen and at what cost?

Edited July 3, 2019 by North Buffalo

[GASabresIUFAN]

24 minutes ago, Taro T said:

You would if it was Randoph Scott Randall Flagg. ?

He rode a Blazing Saddle...,

[LTS]

6 hours ago, spndnchz said:

I’m fine with but personally don’t want to take all those minutes to read one post. 

That's exactly how I interpreted your response.  It is a lot of words and unfortunately in the absence of a lot of words, people just assume *****.  Not saying you, but in general, that's what happens.

So you can be verbose and people ignore you or you can be succinct and people dismiss you.  It's a wonderful world we live in.

 

[sweetlou]

back to the topic at hand, and who fills the #2 center position.  

I believe Buffalo will give Okposo one more year and try and play him with Jack and Skinner.  He protects the puck well and is good in the corners. 

 

[Marvin]

10 hours ago, sweetlou said:

back to the topic at hand, and who fills the #2 center position.  

I believe Buffalo will give Okposo one more year and try and play him with Jack and Skinner.  He protects the puck well and is good in the corners. 

 

I liked Okposo with Larsson and Girgensons.  They drove Pastrnak-Bergeron-Marchand nuts in Boston.  If they do that kind of work against the top line in the game on the road, I can live with their low scoring numbers in the 80% DZS.  JMO.

[Tondas]

7 minutes ago, E4 ... Ke2 said:

I liked Okposo with Larsson and Girgensons.  They drove Pastrnak-Bergeron-Marchand nuts in Boston.  If they do that kind of work against the top line in the game on the road, I can live with their low scoring numbers in the 80% DZS.  JMO.

I agree.  But a 4th liner making $6 million is a lot.  Guess we'll have to grin and bear it.

[pi2000]

21 minutes ago, Tondas said:

I agree.  But a 4th liner making $6 million is a lot.  Guess we'll have to grin and bear it.

Better than Moulson make $5m in the A

[Broken Ankles]

4 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Better than Moulson make $5m in the A

He has 4 more years left on his contract. Let’s hope it’s better in 2022.  

[Marvin]

On 7/3/2019 at 7:19 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

He rode a Blazing Saddle...,

A man to light the way -- with advanced stats.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Sabres Cap Update

Forwards (11) - 45,500,000 - Jack, Jeff, KO, MoJo, Samson, Vlad S, Sheary, Vesey, Z, Wilson and Mitts

RFAs - Larsson and Erod (arbitration)

Defense (8) - 25,792,857 - Risto, Bogo, Scandella, Miller, Montour, Hunwick, Dahlin and Nelson

RFA - McCabe (arbitration)

Goaltending (1) - 2,750,000 - Hutton

RFA - Ullmark (arbitration)

Other - CoHo - 791,667

TOTALS - 20 Players - 74, 834,524 - CAP REMAINING 6,665,476

Players looking to take a job in Buffalo 

1) Olofsson (LW/RW) - 757,500

2) Thompson (RW) - 925,000

3) Nylander (RW/LW) - 863,333

4) Routsalainen (C) - 925,000

5) Lazar (RW/C) - 700,0000

6) Smith, CJ (LW) - 700,000

7) Pilut (LHD) - 925000, but likely to start on IR

8.) Borgen (RHD) - 864,166

9) Gilmour (D) - 700,000

 

This is going to be a crazy camp.  A couple of the 9 looking to take a job in Buffalo will make the team.  If I were Z, Larsson, Wilson, Sobotka, Hunwick and Nelson, I'd be a little worried about my job.

Also, unless someone with a decent size cap hit is traded away (Like a Bogo or Scandella), I doubt Jbot makes anymore major moves this summer.  It looks to me that HCRK and Jbot were serious about keeping Risto and seeing what he can do with a new coach.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by GASabresIUFAN

[GASabresIUFAN]

The Nylander trade further complicated matters

We now have 13 D who played in the NHL last season for 8 slots.  2 of the 13 will certainly start the year on IR and I think there is a good possibility that Bogo stays on the IR all season.  This list includes guys like Borgen who will probably be returned to the AHL.  

We also have, after the acquisitions of Johansson and Vesey, 14 Forwards who played primarily in the NHL last season plus Olofsson, CJ Smith, Lazar and Elie with the former 2 having a real shot at making the NHL next season and Lazar who has an outside shot.  In addition we have Routsalainen who goes back to Finland if he doesn’t make the Sabres.

That’s 28 skaters competing for 21 jobs. 

The defense is relatively easy to solve.  Borgen gets returned to the AHL.  Pilut and Bogo start the year on IR (Pilut on the AHL IR) and that leaves a battle between Gilmour, Scandella and Hunwick for the 3rd and 4th LHD slot.  (I predict Hunwick loses the battle and ends up traded or in the AHL).  Montour, Miller and Nelson hold 3 of the 4 RHD slots.  The question is whether or not Risto gets traded.  If so, Jokiharju makes the team as RHD 3 (Nelson RHD4).  If not Jokiharju gets sent down and Risto is RHD2, Miller RHD 3 and Nelson RHD4.

With the forwards we have 18 guys currently competing for 13 jobs.  To make things more complicated of the 18 forwards, 9 are generally considered LWs with Skinner and Johansson the best of the group.  Of the centers, only Eichel (1st line) and Larsson (4th line) are good in their roles.  Mitts is still a raw commodity and Erod is more utility forward then center.  Routsalainen and Lazar are unknown quantities.  We also only have 3 RWs in Reinhart, KO and Thompson, and only Reinhart should be playing in a top 6 role.  Admittedly Erod, Sobotka, and Johansson with varying degrees of success and Olofsson, Sheary and Vesey can play either wing creating a great deal of flexibility on the positive side and confusion on the negative. 

What a mess.  This could get worse if Risto is traded straight up for a forward. 2C would be the preference.  However, the teams losing a center would probably want Risto and a roster forward (Sheary or Erod make the most sense) to complete the trade which would help both cap and line puzzle wise.

Good luck Jbot.

[triumph_communes]

51 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

The Nylander trade further complicated matters

We now have 13 D who played in the NHL last season for 8 slots.  2 of the 13 will certainly start the year on IR and I think there is a good possibility that Bogo stays on the IR all season.  This list includes guys like Borgen who will probably be returned to the AHL.  

We also have, after the acquisitions of Johansson and Vesey, 14 Forwards who played primarily in the NHL last season plus Olofsson, CJ Smith, Lazar and Elie with the former 2 having a real shot at making the NHL next season and Lazar who has an outside shot.  In addition we have Routsalainen who goes back to Finland if he doesn’t make the Sabres.

That’s 28 skaters competing for 21 jobs. 

The defense is relatively easy to solve.  Borgen gets returned to the AHL.  Pilut and Bogo start the year on IR (Pilut on the AHL IR) and that leaves a battle between Gilmour, Scandella and Hunwick for the 3rd and 4th LHD slot.  (I predict Hunwick loses the battle and ends up traded or in the AHL).  Montour, Miller and Nelson hold 3 of the 4 RHD slots.  The question is whether or not Risto gets traded.  If so, Jokiharju makes the team as RHD 3 (Nelson RHD4).  If not Jokiharju gets sent down and Risto is RHD2, Miller RHD 3 and Nelson RHD4.

 With the forwards we have 18 guys currently competing for 13 jobs.  To make things more complicated of the 18 forwards, 9 are generally considered LWs with Skinner and Johansson the best of the group.  Of the centers, only Eichel (1st line) and Larsson (4th line) are good in their roles.  Mitts is still a raw commodity and Erod is more utility forward then center.  Routsalainen and Lazar are unknown quantities.  We also only have 3 RWs in Reinhart, KO and Thompson, and only Reinhart should be playing in a top 6 role.  Admittedly Erod, Sobotka, and Johansson with varying degrees of success and Olofsson, Sheary and Vesey can play either wing creating a great deal of flexibility on the positive side and confusion on the negative. 

What a mess.  This could get worse if Risto is traded straight up for a forward. 2C would be the preference.  However, the teams losing a center would probably want Risto and a roster forward (Sheary or Erod make the most sense) to complete the trade which would help both cap and line puzzle wise.

 Good luck Jbot.

I wouldn't call it a mess when there isn't a player who would have to pass through waivers that anyone would mind actually losing, or have value any higher than a 3rd rounder.  That's just healthy competition, with no externalities forcing him to make a decision beyond what's shown on the ice.